January 23, 2013

Our Brightest Minds

Only hours after students installed a “Free Speech Wall” at Carleton University to prove that campus free speech was alive and well, it was torn down by an activist who claimed the wall was an “act of violence” against the gay community. “What we wanted to promote was competition of ideas, rather than ‘if I disagree with you I’ve got to censor you,’” said Ian CoKehyeng, founder of Carleton Students for Liberty, the creators of the wall. Installed on Monday in the Unicentre Galleria, one of campus’ most high-traffic areas, the wall was really more of a 1.2 x 1.8 metre wooden plank wrapped in paper and equipped with felt markers. By Tuesday morning the wall was gone, destroyed in an act of “forceful resistance” by seventh-year human rights student Arun Smith.

Yes, I know. Forceful resistance. Against free speech. By a human rights student.

A
human rights student who last year promised to ensure “every voice is empowered and every student’s voice is heard.”

Well,
maybe not every voice. It seems there’ll
be some pre-emptive and unilateral vetting.

But wait, there’s more.

“In organising the ‘free speech wall,’ the Students for Liberty have forgotten that liberty requires liberation, and this liberation is prevented by providing space … for the expression of hate,” wrote Smith in a 600-word Facebook post in which he identified himself as an anti-homophobia campaigner. Calling the area around the wall a “war zone,” he intimated that it was “but another in a series of acts of violence” against gay rights. In a Tuesday afternoon Twitter exchange with a CBC reporter, Mr Smith dubbed free speech an “illusory concept” and declared that “not every opinion is valid, nor deserving of expression.”

The punchline cometh.

In truth, the wall’s only overt references to sexual orientation were pro-gay, such as “QUEERS ARE AWESOME,” “Gay is OK” and “I [Heart] Queers.” The only comment that verged into anti-gay territory was a scrawl reading “traditional marriage is awesome.”

Some kinds of stupid have to be educated into the kids.

Update, via the comments:

So far as I can see, and despite his extensive commentary on the subject, Arun Smith still hasn’t specified any actual remark that offended him sufficiently to vandalise the wall then boast about it online. However, he does tell us that, “breaking down barriers requires anti-oppressive discourse,” which is “antithetical to ‘free speech’.” Expectations of free speech are, he informs us, “structurally oppressive.” Quizzed
on his presumed entitlement to violence, Mr Smith replies, “You forget that writing can be violence. Resistance to
violence is not violence.” And so he, being heroic, must resist and intervene to save some (again unspecified and exquisitely precious) potential victim. In this case, presumably, he’s saving them from the psychological hazard of passing by the statement “traditional marriage is awesome.” Four words that would obviously shatter the self-esteem of any vulnerable student already on the verge of weeping. Such are the dramas to be enacted in the modern Canadian university, one of the
most indulgentandcossettingenvironments in the history of the world.

In fact, existing particulars don’t appear to trouble Mr Smith, for whom abstractions and potentials are much more congenial, and whose ostensible grievance is that someone is even “providing space… for the expression of hate.” To
permit an area for free speech, even one the size of an average desk, is,
we learn, “offensive, ill-considered and dangerous,” especially “during our Pride Week,
where our communities are supposed to be able to seek liberation and celebrate
our diversity.” In a lengthy, self-flattering Facebook screed Mr Smith objects to the existence of a space in which “there is potential for triggering, the invalidation or questioning of the identities of others, and/or the expression of hatred.” (The arbiters of what constitutes triggering, invalidation and hatred – sorry, potential triggering, invalidation and hatred - are of course Mr Smith and those who think like him.) Questioning
a person’s “identity” is impermissible too. And the mere potential for such things is apparently so heinous, so vicious, it’s a basis for vandalism. And subsequently, self-congratulation.

Regardless of its content, the free speech wall is, we’re told, “an act of violence.” A “microaggression.” And so Mr Smith feels obliged and entitled to retaliate, in order to pre-empt any hate (as defined by him) that might potentially occur at some point in the future. A line of moral reasoning that’s rather bold and which gives our saviour enormous scope for “forceful resistance” against almost anything he doesn’t like, even if it hasn’t happened yet. Naturally, Mr Smith, whose minor, incidentally, is “sexuality studies,” sees himself as a martyr: “I take full and sole responsibility for this action, I understand there will likely be consequences, and I am prepared for the imposition of those consequences, however unjust they might be.” Last night, Ezra Levant interviewed this fearless champion of the potentially oppressed. If nothing else, it’s an illustration of what happens when someone internalises the ticks and contortions of identity politics and cultivated victimhood. And when a passive-aggressive outlook is a person’s default state.

Update 2:

In the comments, one reader suggests that Mr Smith, who seems determined to remain on campus for as long as possible, may have developed something akin to institutional syndrome. Certainly, he’s learned to mouth the usual vanities, and the attempts to rationalise his authoritarian urges are accompanied with a
smile. So those seven years and counting haven’t entirely been wasted. As another reader notes, Mr Smith appears to base his moral displays on which group a person can be said to belong to, if you squint and tilt your head, rather than on what a person actually does, or wishes to do, to others. And so Mr Smith tells us that, “Contrary to popular belief, feelings and emotions are entirely valid and matter.” (Unlike free speech, reciprocity and personal property, feelings must be inviolate.) Though some people’s feelings evidently trump others, to the extent that the feelings of Designated Victims – designated by Mr Smith – are to be spared even from potential questioning, while others – thee and me, I guess – will have to learn our place, humbled and silent, in the New Hierarchy.

It doesn’t require much of a stretch to see how such thinking might appeal to a certain, rather unpleasant, kind of personality. Which brings us to the nub of this grim comedy. Taken at face value, Mr Smith most likely imagines himself as daring and radical, shaking our preconceptions with his pretentious vandalism, all carefully wrapped in claims of put-upon virtue and Marxoid jargon. But it seems to me he’s all too ready to conform, and to insist that others do the same, while simply following a pattern of petty, dogmatic idiocythat we’ve seenmany times before. Readers will note how these acts of vandalism are often encouraged by, or conducted by, uptight leftist faculty. They’re so very keen to show us what they will not tolerate. And in that respect, Mr Smith is the ideal, self-satisfied product of a modern leftist education.

It’s good to know that loving your wife or husband is now verging on ‘anti-gay’.

Oh, I think you’re still permitted to actually love each other, discreetly, and even to have unspoken regard for the institution. You’re just not supposed to mention it in public. Though I may be wrong. It’s hard to keep track of these things.

But for some among us, tolerance and acceptance (or indeed indifference) mean you must affirm every whim of the Designated Victim Group. Every assumption, however fatuous, every molecule of their being, must be endorsed wholeheartedly. Anything less would be a sign of your hatred, obviously. Remember Zoe Williams’ theatrical weeping over a mayonnaise advert?

And I vaguely recall gay activist groups taking umbrage at an equally innocuous Snickers ad, which dared to imply that some straight men feel uncomfortable kissing other straight men, albeit inadvertently and while eating a chocolate bar. The Mars Corporation, which immediately pulled the advert, was accused of “anti-gay prejudice” and told to “correct the intolerant message they sent to millions of Americans.” That the joke was actually at the expense of the burly men in question, not gay people, was somehow overlooked. Again, tolerance so defined means continual affirmation and any suggestion, however flippant, that not everyone is entirely comfortable indulging in same-sex affection is apparently to be expunged from public life. For fear that it will crush we delicate homosexuals, who withdraw to our fainting couches unless everyone agrees with us about everything at every waking moment.

"... it was torn down by an activist who claimed the wall was an “act of violence” against the gay community."

Should said activist like to come to East London, and take a stroll round areas claimed by one of our many Muslim community outreach projects, he might learn just what an 'act of violence' really is...

On his twitter page Arun Smith describes himself as a “homophobia/transphobia campaign coordinator” and a “highly delinquent individual.” He also tells us, “I don’t believe in ‘free speech,’ but rather participatory speech and inclusive dialogue.” Which presumably excuses his authoritarian urges and self-righteous vandalism.

I suppose it’s always been a stage for theatrics of one kind or another, but the scenario above is comical, practically surreal. A campus in which students feel they need a free speech wall, for God’s sake, and a human rights activist who objects to said wall because… well, because. It’s the kind of narcissistic bubble that can only be sustained in the Clown Quarter of academia, where children don’t grow up. Imagine transplanting that retentive self-important fuss into everyday life. I suspect it would seem a little odd.

For instance, near where I live there’s a newly-built student village, an upmarket halls of residence. If you walk past it, or through the grounds, you’ll see the usual student guff - posters and stickers demanding “solidarity” with dubious or reprehensible groups, or demanding the imposition of communism in the name of “social justice.” Yes, these things are hackneyed and fatuous. Some might find them faintly obnoxious. But I’m not likely to prowl the campus and start ripping down posters or picking at stickers on lampposts. Because I’m not quite that petty, dogmatic or self-absorbed.

It reminded me of the “dialogue facilitators” at Queens University, the ones hired to “encourage discussion of privilege and social justice issues” by eavesdropping on students’ private lunchtime discussions.

[ Added: ]

Incidentally, Mr Smith thinks the free speech wall constitutes a “microaggression,” which may explain his demands for official “safe spaces” on campus, along with “anti-oppressive and intersectional analyses.” No doubt that’s because the modern Canadian university is a little-known hotbed of gay-bashing and unrelenting intolerance, and not one of the most indulgent and cossetting environments in the history of the world.

And I vaguely recall gay activist groups taking umbrage at an equally innocuous Snickers ad, which dared to imply that some straight men feel uncomfortable kissing other straight men,

This one I don't get: How is it homophobic for straights to demonstrate aversion to engaging in homo-eroticism themselves? If a gay man recoils from a flirty woman, what's that? Heterophobia? Or merely expected behavior? What if any man, gay or straight, recoils at the thought of kissing his sister or of taking his mom to the prom? Is that incestophobia? I should hope so!

there is probably less free speech at modern universities than almost

Oh, you can take out the caveats. In the Western world the universities easily top the list of intolerant institutions. You'd have to go to North Korea or Red China or Saudi Arabia to find worse, but only because universities can't actually jail you or have you beheaded for your transgressions.

It’s the kind of narcissistic bubble that can only be sustained in the Clown Quarter of academia

They're hothouse flowers who scorn the very mention of frost, it being a tool of oppression wielded by alpine perennials--who don't even have the decency to bloom year-round--in their quest for floral dominance through ersatz victimhood.

This may amuse. In February last year Mr Smith made a video and a promise:

I am here so that I can make a difference in terms of creating inclusive, open spaces that are safe spaces where every voice is empowered and where every student’s voice is heard.

Evidently, that commitment to making sure “every student’s voice is heard” excludes anyone deemed “oppressive” or “hateful” or, quite possibly, politically uncongenial. Presumably it also excludes people who dare to write the words “traditional marriage is awesome,” thereby shattering the self-esteem of all vulnerable students within a five-mile radius.

According to Mr Smith, “breaking down barriers requires anti-oppressive discourse,” which is apparently “antithetical to ‘free speech’.” Expectations of free speech are, he informs us, “structurally oppressive.” And so he, being heroic, must intervene to save some unspecified (and exquisitely precious) potential victim. In this case, presumably, he’s saving them from the words “traditional marriage is awesome.”

Of course some personalities are strongly drawn to linguistic control fantasies and dogmatic pettiness generally, but it’s best not to encourage them. And when someone starts dictating the terms of a discussion in this way before it can happen – what may be said and how, and by whom (if given permission) – then it’s probably wise to assume that person’s intentions aren’t entirely honest or benign. Pretentious Marxoid rhetoric can excuse any number of nasty little urges.

So far as I can see, Mr Smith still hasn’t specified any actual comment that offended him sufficiently to vandalise the wall. Conceivably, the four words mentioned above – “traditional marriage is awesome” – were deemed vicious, oppressive and grounds for some self-righteous smashing. And if his ostensible grievance is that someone is merely “providing space… for the expression of hate,” then I suppose he can pre-empt any “hate” (as defined by him) that might potentially occur at some point in the future. And so the space itself becomes “an act of violence,” and a target for violent retribution, regardless of what, if anything, is actually written on it.

And if that’s the reasoning, it’s enormously convenient and rather bold.

Err not quite Arun meboy. When Ronnie said 'tear down this wall' that wasn't exactly what he meant and Gorbachev aint exactly Russian for Smith young feller, but I can ceratainly understand your youthful enthusiasm to honour Reagan's memory.

This evening, acting alone, and in an act of forceful resistance, I removed the Carleton Students for Liberty’s “free speech wall” from the Unicentre Galleria. I take full and sole responsibility for this action, I understand there will likely be consequences, and I am prepared for the imposition of those consequences, however unjust they might be.

In his lengthy, self-flattering Facebook screed Mr Smith objected to a space in which “there is potential for triggering, the invalidation or questioning of the identities of others, and/or the expression of hatred.” The mere potential for such things is apparently heinous, indeed vicious, and, it seems, a basis for narcissistic vandalism. Obviously this gives our self-appointed saviour enormous scope for “forceful resistance” against anything he doesn’t like, even if it hasn’t happened yet. And the arbiters of what constitutes “triggering,” “invalidation” and “hatred” – sorry, potential “triggering,” “invalidation” and “hatred” - are of course Mr Smith and those who think like him.

Last night, Ezra Levant interviewed this fearless and heroic champion of the potentially oppressed. If nothing else, it’s an illustration of what happens when someone internalises the ticks and contortions of identity politics and cultivated victimhood. And when a passive-aggressive outlook is a person’s default state.

Here's the problem with that mindset (would that there were only one): Morality is not sited in the act and intention of the individual actor but is instead located in external circumstances, i.e., an act of someone powerful = immoral and the act of a victim = moral.

More cheap grace, more evasion of responsibility for one's own conduct, more license to act on one's impulses instead of learning to rein them in.

I look forward to him getting a PhD, a professorship, and finally tenure one day, all heavily subsidized by those he claims to despise. And lots of appearances on the CBC (also heavily subsidized) as an expert on social justice.

A man whose spent seven years studying for a phony degree, vanquishing a plank of wood wrapped in paper that he felt oppressed by, who subsequently feels so giddy with triumph at his achievement that he struts about the internet loudly proclaiming himself a hero and a martyr.

Does anyone run an annual Most Pathetic Person contest? Because they need to be told we have an early frontrunner here.

Well, he’s cultivated the usual vanities and pathological unrealism, and he’s learned to smile while attempting to rationalise his authoritarian urges. So those seven years haven’t been entirely wasted. As dicentra pointed out, it seems that Mr Smith bases his moral displays on which group a person can be said to belong to (if you squint and tilt your head), rather than on what a person actually does, or wishes to do, to others. And so Mr Smith tells us that, “Contrary to popular belief, feelings and emotions are entirely valid and matter.” (Unlike free speech, reciprocity and personal property, feelings must be inviolate.) Though some people’s feelings evidently trump others, to the extent that the feelings of Designated Victims – designated by Mr Smith – are to be spared even from potential questioning, while others – thee and me, I guess – will have to learn our place, humbled and silent, in the New Hierarchy.

You can see the appeal to a certain kind of sadist.

That and the lack of self-awareness make him a perfect drone in the progressive army.

That’s what’s funny, or almost funny. Mr Smith most likely imagines himself as daring and radical, shaking our preconceptions with his pretentious vandalism. It seems to me he’s all too ready to conform, and simply following a pattern of petty, dogmatic idiocy that we’ve seen many times before. Note how these acts of vandalism are often encouraged by, or conducted by, uptight leftist faculty. They’re so very keen to show us what they will not tolerate. In that respect, Mr Smith is the ideal, self-satisfied product of a modern leftist education.

"Not sure, but he easily makes my Petty Authoritarian Twat Of The Year shortlist"

Qualifying for the former usually compels people to behave in a manner that'll qualify them for the latter. Crusades against paper tiger foes (or just literal paper in this case) are the easiest way to induce enough sanctimonious self importance to ease the pain of realising that you kinda suck.

In the mid-ninties while my wife and I were attending college in Montana, the student newspaper published a special edition that included a two page spread on their local Man of the Year as decided by the editorial board. I read over the piece and decided it was meant to be ironic or satirical. To my surprise, when I inquired about it at their offices I was told no, it was a serious piece and the award was real. So the joke was on me and these kid's parents.

Their man of the year was in his late thirties, lived in his mother's basement, was unemployed, sponged off both her and his grandmother for all his necessities, but did occasionally raise a little spending money by selling one of his collectable comic books. He was however a gadfly at city council meetings, always making his opinions heard during proceedings on whatever nonsense he was worked up about. So political activity, however stupid or pointless, was enough for these young intellects to believe him deserving of accolades.

I would have asked if the guy was maybe mentally impaired and thus chosen out of PC motivations, but there was no mention of that in the article. Frankly, I was too flabbergasted to even speak at that moment so I just walked away.

To permit just one area for free speech, even one the size of an average desk, is, we learn, “offensive, ill-considered and dangerous,” especially “during our Pride Week, where our communities are supposed to be able to seek liberation and celebrate our diversity.”

A free and honest exchange would, in time, expose his conceits and evasions. For instance, the grandiose pretensions of victimhood in such a cossetting environment, and the pretensions of having “no institutional support” despite all evidence to the contrary, including no fewer than 14 specialist on-campus “diversity,” “equity” and “support” offices, a GLBT centre, and of course a Director of Student Affairs who felt obliged to ponder whether the words “traditional marriage is awesome” constitute “hate speech” and a basis for punishment. (A campus that “challenges heterosexism” and provides endless gender-and-identity workshops and “safe spaces,” gender-neutral washrooms, and a – note the spelling – “womyn’s centre,” where students are invited to whine about their “body image” and being too fat or too thin, or too pretty or not pretty enough. And where “those who identify as womyn” hold “exciting events such as The Colourful Vagina, showcasing their talent, creativity, and culture.”)

A free and honest exchange might also expose the assumption that feigned victimhood should grant unilateral privileges, including a right to silence others and prevent them even from potentially questioning one’s alleged victimhood. Or the assertion that almost any disagreement amounts to “hate” and that those who disagree are by definition “hateful” and “oppressive” and should therefore be punished with acts of “forceful resistance.” And of course the conceit that all of this can be determined – can only be determined - by the likes of Mr Smith.

Yes, pulling on those threads wouldn’t do any favours to Mr Smith’s ego.

A woman hires a hitman to kill her ex-husband. She then claims dubiously (read the article) that he was an 'abusive control freak, who punches holes in walls, once put a gun to her head, and who exercised a “reign of terror” over the household'.

The ex-husband is not called to testify at the trial, so is not able to refute these allegations - as he does, robustly, elsewhere. The lady in question is acquitted. The Nova Scotia Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the acquittal, as I understand it, but she won't face a retrial because “The abuse she suffered and the protracted nature of these proceeding(s) have taken an enormous toll on her” (note that “the abuse she suffered" is according to her own testimony, accepted by the judges without question)

"When a witness demonstrably intent on murder is given full latitude to make her case, possibly cut from whole cloth, while the intended victim, painted as a villain, is denied his right to face his accuser, what are we to think?"

Henry, it reminds me of the superinjunction cases in the UK where, by claiming they are being blackmailed, many celebrities get to silence, for example, the husbands of the women they have been fucking. Like the case you mention, the judges accept without question the charges of blackmail, granting the superinjunctions on that basis when they should actually be putting the purported blackmailler on trial.

It’s a pleasure. Well, maybe not a pleasure exactly. And thanks to all who’ve made donations to fund my, um, wading. These boots could do with hosing and hosing good.

Oh, but the drama goes on. Mr Smith now takes exception to the observation, aired here and elsewhere, that he’s a product of his academic environment, a testament to its dysfunction. Faced with some unflattering and rather obvious truths, Mr Smith dismisses his critics as “anti-intellectual” and “lacking in analysis.” This from a man who delights in vandalism and who responds to disagreement, or potential disagreement, by smashing someone else’s property and then boasting about it afterwards.

Behold the new intellectual - dogmatic, narcissistic and impervious to correction, but so much cleverer than us. Because he tells us so.

and a – note the spelling – “womyn’s centre,” where students are invited to whine about their “body image” and being too fat or too thin, or too pretty or not pretty enough. And where “those who identify as womyn” hold “exciting events such as The Colourful Vagina, showcasing their talent, creativity, and culture.”

I should think that self-awareness would be sniffed out in no time and actively discouraged.

[ Added: ]

I’ve just received a snotty and self-satisfied email from someone who’s taken exception to this post, for reasons they don’t share, telling me to “take a look at my unexamined privilege.” The details of my alleged “privilege” aren’t specified of course, but I guess the hope is that the accusation alone will make me stop noticing Mr Smith’s conceits and idiocies. It’s remarkable how the denouncers of “privilege” will make sweeping assumptions about a person they don’t know for reasons they can’t specify, apparently based on dogmatic misapprehensions and Marxoid bigotry, and then congratulate themselves for having done so.

If they were specified the sender might be in danger of having a thesis that could be argued with clearly along rational lines.

"Privilege" is, as you say part of the language these people use - an argot, lamely pretending to sound intellectually superior. Ironically it is employed by people too fervently political - and probably, I'm afraid, too stupid - to concern themselves with logical rigor.

"The details of my alleged “privilege” aren’t specified of course, but I guess the hope is that the accusation alone will make me stop noticing Mr Smith’s conceits and idiocies."

I'm sure the fact you don't already know the details of your "privilege" is construed by the sender as proof that you're hopelessly blinded by it, and thus should shut up until such time as you accept the argument against free speech. Lovely Catch-22 there.

I'm sure the fact you don’t already know the details of your ‘privilege’ is construed by the sender as proof that you’re hopelessly blinded by it, and thus should shut up until such time as you accept the argument against free speech.

That was indeed the gist of it.

Some people just want to let us know that, being egalitarian, they’re above certain things and very much above certain people, i.e., people who disagree and choose not to pretend. (See the tweets of Mr Smith for dozens of examples.) Of course the term “privilege” is tendentious, often question-begging, and the tone with which it’s typically used implies that one is not only dense but has some kind of egregious and unfair advantage, as determined unilaterally by the accuser, and for which one should atone and feel guilty. And so the accuser becomes the gatekeeper of virtue and Corrected Thinking.

As a phenomenon, “privilege-checking” (or Privilege Top Trumps) isn’t really about fairness at all; it’s a social positioning exercise. A kind of passive-aggressive browbeating. It’s about tricking people into deference and signalling that one is aware of some incredibly rarefied and unverifiable form of oppression that other people – lesser people – can’t see. Evidence and specifics don’t matter, and nor does logic. Claims of theoretical, potential harm will do, however improbable and absurd – say, that the words “traditional marriage is awesome” might reduce a faint-hearted soul to tears, depression and thoughts of self-harm. Such is Mr Smith’s ongoing psychodrama.